Here is an extraordinary example of the depths to which academic journals are willing to go in support of the great green cause.

Count how many times Bain et al use the "d-word" in their paper on attitudes towards AGW - it certainly looks as if the authors intended to generate offence and controversy rather than truth and light. Hilariously, the authors are writing about how to convert people to the green cause!

I think it's pretty interesting that the editors have decided to give their backing to this kind of thing. One almost wonders if they are struggling for readers and need to try to get some attention. Of course it has long been clear that Nature has been so corrupted by greenery as to put a question mark over all of its output. This latest paper is just confirmation of what we already knew.

I have written a blog post on the Bain et al paper you have recently published. I found it quite surprising that a reputable journal would publish an article that contained so much offensive language.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/18/potty-mouthed-nature.html

I was wondering if you would care to comment on your decision to publish the article in this form. Did the editorial team consider asking the authors to use less incendiary language? Do you view your journal as having a role in encouraging civilised debate? Do you have policies on offensive language?

Reader Comments (147)

"Climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development."

Unfortunately for the author, climate change "deniers" will take some persuading that either of these outcomes is a likely consequence of climate change "action", but full marks for writing a primer on how to brainwash people. This and the recent Adam Corner piece show the extent to which the discipline of psychology is prepared to prostitute itself for the environmentalist cause.

The following paragraph from the abstract caught my eye (mentioned in part by Nicholas Hallam I notice):-

An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development.

Filtering out the unpleasant language and smugness, I wonder if this does represent a genuine offer to find more reasonable policy options? It does in some ways echo the kind of suggestions made by Pielke Jr and the Hartwell group. Alternatively, it might just be more blather, I suppose.

"about the outcomes of acting on climate change using one of three frames: the reality of climate change and how acting would avert its environmental and health risks (Real frame); climate change action would increase interpersonal warmth in society (Warmth frame); or climate change action would promote economic and scientific development"

And there's the problem, none of the proposed actions will actually have those effects.

"climate change action would increase interpersonal warmth"

They're Australians. The action under way in the UK means that the way to "increase interpersonal warmth" will be huddling together under a couple of duvets one windless -9C February night and hoping the power will come back on tomorrow.

Actually, the paper can be made quite reasonable - in an Alice in Wonderland sort of way - with a couple of simple substitutions:

"Enormous effort has been devoted to convincing the public that the Easter Bunny is real. However, these attempts are increasingly failing—since 2008 the number of deniers of the Easter Bunny has climbed to one-third or more of the population in high-Easter egg countries such as the United States and Australia. As widespread acceptance of the reality of the Easter Bunny is considered critical to effective responses, public scepticism about the Easter Bunny is seen as an important obstacle to meeting the Easter Bunny challenge."

OMG I live in Brisbane. It's a terrifying thought but they may live in the next street. I might even see them down at the pub. There's been a few weird looking characters down there recently.

However they're social scientists, psychologists, wannabe Lewandowskis, so why does anyone expect them to write anything else but this sort of tripe? I wouldn't have even bothered with the letter. Brief as it is and fobbed off as it will be.

I find it very difficult to decide if this paper should be taken seriously, or whether it is intended to act as a "wind-up" for realists. I was tempted to say "Well, they are Australians after all", but this would be insulting to the many intelligent, educated and articulate Australians. What could possibly have induced the editors even to consider such a paper? I copied a section onto my word-processor, and the grammar check consistently came up with "repetition" of the d-word. Five d-words in three sentences in one paragraph. Surely this calls into question the quality of the editors? It is so badly written that I have only "skimmed" it, so cannot comment on the psyence.

Could not be bothered to read the actual article at Nature. For the same reasons I will not read articles that contain terms such as watermelons, eco-fascist. I applaude the good bishops efforts at returning the debate to a proper discussion rather than vitriolic rubbish.

'Deniers may eventually be convinced by sustained efforts at communicating climate science, or through personal experiences attributable to climate change such as flooding.'

Yeah! Inundate all those pesky deniers! That'll teach them a lesson they damn well deserve!

Meanwhile in the real world seven forlorn Laborites (count 'em seven!) sit in the Queensland parliament. Must be depressing being a leftie academic in Brisvegas these days. Go the Maroons! (Rugby league reference)

Yeah, another study from Australia that seems to have a lot of meta-baggage underlying it that the great journal Nature seems willing to ignore. Like constantly accepting papers on eugenics from 1930’s German scholars without wondering if there is something else going on (yeah sod Godwin) . I am not sure if complaining about the terminology per se is worthwhile without ascertaining why they don’t make it more rigorous? Asserting that it is offensive is like being overly PC why not make a more nuanced point about the crappiness of the report in the first place?

If they can show they surveyed people who deny anthropogenic climate change it is possible then that the usage is fair. I think more attention should be addressed towards what the “Screening questions” are, I couldn't see them in the supplementary. I suspect there are issues there for a start – a screening fallacy? ;) And were they as rigorous with their screening of believers?

What is it about Australia currently about climate? I think a meta study on the society that provides this stuff would be more interesting

The thing is they talk about “believers and deniers” which to me, if you take it literally, almost certainly misses most of the population. Why is a study on how minorities influence the majority policy so poorly laid out?

The worst thing about this paper is the fact it is a social science paper so laden with overt a priori assumptions that are hardly understood by the authors. Something I am beginning to realise having been reading the alleged “Literature” that supports this awful self-deception, is that reference to another paper when making a gross a priori assumption is the normal technique that leads them along the road to this delusionary scholarship.

For me this is just another piss poor paper that reduces the standing of Nature really. But what the hell, that's me, maybe the rest of the science community love this level of crap? What does that say?

"Here is an extraordinary example of the depths to which academic journals are willing to go in support of the great green cause."

But it's not published in an academic paper, it's been published in Nature, which gave up being an academic paper some years ago.

Having said that, it is drivel, but you have to be aware that they don't see "deniers" as people, the very word separates us from the human race, it will make it easier for them should they ever get the chance to persecute those that don't share their philosophy.

It's purely a subjective impression, but over the last year or two, a lot of likewarmers or don't knows have moved over to the realist side. I think cack-handed propaganda like the stuff Nature publishes, has been a factor in their decision. More interestingly, I've yet to hear of a realist moving over to the alarmist side. Perhaps I should apply for a grant to study it ...

Through these papers I think I can dimly perceive the future of the CAGW movement. Ordinary people are ceasing to believe in droves, the politicians have noticed and are chasing votes as usual. Most of the proper scientists e.g. physicists etc. were never convinced in the first place. Soon the pseudo-scientists (eg. climatologists, environmentalists) will jump ship too. Only psychology departments will still believe, and write increasingly obscure papers trying to identify the reason why no-one outside their departments is afraid of the coming climatic nightmare.

There’s so much wrong with this paper, it seems foolish to get worked up about one word. Richard Lindzen prefers to be called a denier than a sceptic, so why should I complain? “Tory”, “Whig” and “Quaker” all started out as insults before being adopted as badges of honour. (Someone also once mentioned the Old Contemptibles).There’s a contact address for one of the authors if you click on “affiliation” but I’ll read the article carefully first.The gist seems to be that you can make people accept doubling energy prices and restrictions on air travel if you tell them it will result in people becoming more moral, interpersonally warm and competent. Perhaps the interpersonal warmth will help them cut down on their heating bills.

''Deniers may eventually be convinced by sustained efforts at communicating climate science, or through personal experiences attributable to climate change such as flooding.'

Noah thought it was the wrath of god for not doing his sacrifices right or some other such bo**ocks. Nowadays the warmists believe it is the wrath of gaia for not cutting our emissions or some other such bo**ocks

I am hard pushed to really see much of a qualitative difference between then and now.

So where do the psychogarbage clowns get their money from?Of course they are so intelligent that they think if you want to win an argument then insult your opponent.Unfortunately for them the have no argument and are actually in complete denial.

I recall watching a BBC programme Beautiful Minds on Graphene. The highly skilled and very competent editorial staff on Nature rejected Geim’s and Novoselov’s paper on graphene not once but twice. They went on to win the Nobel Prize.I speculate, but could it be because Graphene is carbon atoms and the poor luvs at Nature can't tell the difference between Carbon and CO2?

Just parsing the words as they appear in the paper and trying hard not to make too many assumptions my end. The words suggested to me that the authors may be willing to support "greater economic/technological development", which would be good I think. However, I also accept that it could simply be a debating ploy, as you suggest (and you are probably right).

What is it about Australia currently about climate? I think a meta study on the society that provides this stuff would be more interesting ----------------------------------------------------It is because the government which has promoted CAGW is currently on 30% approval rate and is throwing everything it can (ie our money) at the wall in the hope that something will stick. The CO2 tax comes in on July 1 and is currently detested by the vast majority of voters, despite lavish bribes to certain sections of the population.

The research dollars have been flowing because of political prioritisation - for example the Australian Research Council, one of the major funding sources, has given priority to projects that will 'help us to prevent and deal with climate change' for several years now, thanks to the inclinations of its political masters who control the ARC budget. Same goes for the universities, who spend a lot of their time sucking up to Ministers because that is how they get their money.

These projects are often delivered over multi-year periods, so there will be a backlog, but expect the tide to start turning no later than November 2013, which is the last possible date for the next Federal election.

As for Nature, the only debate left is whether it is a rag or a comic. I wish our host the best in trying to shame them, but am not optimistic.

This paper is market research to aid policy makers in creating promotional material to support their programme. Nothing wrong with that. If Australians don’t like it, they can vote out the people who commissioned it. But what’s Nature doing publishing it?

Actually, the climate change "deniers" are now the global warming alarmists. They keep denying that the global warming swindle is coming off its wheels. In any case, the more they use the "denier" term, the more support they are going to lose from the man on the street. As it is, most people around the world no longer trust climate change "scientists" and their wolf-crying stories. So let them, as they say: give a fool enough rope...

Nine participants (2%) were excluded for exhibiting convergent evidence of pattern and nonsense responding, e.g., completing the whole survey in less than 3 minutes with no variation in scores, and answering the text question with nonsensical responses like “nanananananananana”.

Full marks and a gold star in their diaries for the Magnificent Nine. Although I'm sure they would be mortified to know they exhibited "convergent evidence of pattern".

Neither "Belief" nor "Denial" have any place in a subject that relies on scientific evidence, and continual testing and review of that evidence. It should be about being either convinced or not convinced by the evidence.

"Denier" is highly-charged word, and even if the evidence is strong, using the word "denier" for someone who is not convinced is deeply unsettling.

"Believer" makes being convinced by the evidence for AGW sound like a religion, which it isn't.

The gist seems to be that you can make people accept doubling energy prices and restrictions on air travel if you tell them it will result in people becoming more moral, interpersonally warm and competent.

Geoff, I think it might be more accurate to say "convince" rather than "tell" but either way I thought psychologists, of all people, were slightly more in touch with the real world.Sure, I would accept all sorts of things if you convinced me that it would be socially and morally beneficial to mankind, possibly even restrictions on air travel and a doubling of energy prices.The difficulty is going to be convincing me because with my knowledge of human nature I am very strongly of the view that these guys have got one hell of an uphill struggle on their hands!

Richard BettsThankyou for a bit of sanity from the coal face! Are these people totally insensitive to anything but their own ivory-tower arrogance?

re--However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positionsJK---Evidence??Why don't you actually try “using scientific evidence”? Of course I mean real evidence, not lies like the hockey stick, or claims that CO2 leads temperature in Al Gore's ice cores when the reverse is the case, or false claims of unprecedented rates or warming, or false claims of the warmest decade in 1000 years.